Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Re: Don't waste your money rebalancing
Old 07-08-2005, 08:00 AM   #41
Dryer sheet wannabe
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 13
Re: Don't waste your money rebalancing

Wellington/Wellesley combo? Please explain. It looks to me like 50/50 portfolio overall and really not a bad idea.

eleighj
__________________

__________________
eleighj is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Re: Don't waste your money rebalancing
Old 07-08-2005, 09:28 AM   #42
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7,408
Re: Don't waste your money rebalancing

The old data I have in a file somewhere - courtesy Dick Young's Intelligence Report - I believe was Dodge and Cox Balanced/Wellesley 50/50. Don't know if Dodge and Cox is still closed.

But the general idea is to used an experienced 'value managed fund' to capture the value premium and set the % mixture to suit your truck - i.e 40/60 to Wellington generally runs 70/30 - so at 100% Wellington - 70% would be as high as you can go.

Oriented toward consevative/retired investors early in retirement.
__________________

__________________
unclemick is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Don't waste your money rebalancing
Old 07-08-2005, 10:37 AM   #43
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
cute fuzzy bunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Losing my whump
Posts: 22,697
Re: Don't waste your money rebalancing

Some 'old school' investors split their dough half in wellington, half in wellesley. You do end up with something in the 50/50 range as a result, with similar stock and bond picking (top 10 equity holdings in each DO differ somewhat).

Other 'old school' programs had you in wellington during your accumulation phase and shifting into wellesley during your withdrawal phase.

Before I married a working woman, I was ~2/3 in wellesley and 1/3 in wellington for my two main core holdings. Liked the income. No huge down days. No huge up days either though. But in general the port crept up while burping up plenty of cash.
__________________
Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful. Just another form of "buy low, sell high" for those who have trouble with things. This rule is not universal. Do not buy a 1973 Pinto because everyone else is afraid of it.
cute fuzzy bunny is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Don't waste your money rebalancing
Old 07-08-2005, 10:44 AM   #44
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
REWahoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 42,107
Re: Don't waste your money rebalancing

Quote:
Originally Posted by unclemick2
The old data I have in a file somewhere - courtesy Dick Young's Intelligence Report - I believe was Dodge and Cox Balanced/Wellesley 50/50. Don't know if Dodge and Cox is still closed.
I'm in the process of rolling over my 401(k) to an IRA and I'm going with a mix of D&C Balanced/Wellesley plus ~15% D&C International. D&C Balanced is closed to new investors but since I held it in my 401(k) I am not considered new.

Unclemick, head for the hills (literally).

REW
__________________
Numbers is hard

When I hit 70, it hit back

Retired in 2005 at age 58, no pension
REWahoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Don't waste your money rebalancing
Old 07-08-2005, 10:46 AM   #45
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
cute fuzzy bunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Losing my whump
Posts: 22,697
Re: Don't waste your money rebalancing

I used to have dodge and cox balanced, I think from about 2001 to the end of 2002. Performed well in that period. Smelled a lot like wellington to me, only slightly higher ER.
__________________
Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful. Just another form of "buy low, sell high" for those who have trouble with things. This rule is not universal. Do not buy a 1973 Pinto because everyone else is afraid of it.
cute fuzzy bunny is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Don't waste your money rebalancing
Old 07-08-2005, 11:00 AM   #46
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
REWahoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 42,107
Re: Don't waste your money rebalancing

Quote:
Originally Posted by Just not
I used to have dodge and cox balanced, I think from about 2001 to the end of 2002. Performed well in that period. Smelled a lot like wellington to me, only slightly higher ER.
The funds are similar, but D&C mix is 60/25/15 while Wellesley is 40/60. No surprise that D&C has outperformed Wellesley by a small margin over the past 20 years (avg. return 14.3% vs. 11.7%). Also D&C has had only one year of losses in the past 20 ('02 - 2.9%) while Wellesley has had three losing years ('87, '94, '99).

I know, I know. "Past perfomance is no...." But I'm paying my money and takin' my chances.

REW
__________________
Numbers is hard

When I hit 70, it hit back

Retired in 2005 at age 58, no pension
REWahoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Don't waste your money rebalancing
Old 07-08-2005, 11:12 AM   #47
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
REWahoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 42,107
Re: Don't waste your money rebalancing

Quote:
Originally Posted by REWahoo!
The funds are similar, but D&C mix is 60/25/15 while Wellesley is 40/60.
th, you said Wellington, not Wellesley. Nevermind.

REW
__________________
Numbers is hard

When I hit 70, it hit back

Retired in 2005 at age 58, no pension
REWahoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Don't waste your money rebalancing
Old 07-08-2005, 11:13 AM   #48
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
cute fuzzy bunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Losing my whump
Posts: 22,697
Re: Don't waste your money rebalancing

Mmmm hmmm...you were too busy watching your spelling to check content

Blame trumpet al for that one

Wellesleys had three losers, but the following years were boomers.

Wellesley is also most often closer to a 35/65 fund than a 40/60.
__________________
Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful. Just another form of "buy low, sell high" for those who have trouble with things. This rule is not universal. Do not buy a 1973 Pinto because everyone else is afraid of it.
cute fuzzy bunny is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Don't waste your money rebalancing
Old 07-08-2005, 12:38 PM   #49
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 438
Re: Don't waste your money rebalancing

Efficient Frontier

William J. Bernstein

Case Studies in Rebalancing


I'm often asked about the optimal portfolio rebalancing frequency. In previous pieces I showed that the benefit from rebalancing is contingent upon 3 factors:
o The volatility of the portfolio assets. The more volatile, the better.
o The correlations of the portfolio assets. Lower correlations mean higher rebalancing returns.
o The differences in returns among the assets. The lower, the better. If asset returns are very different, then you in fact may be better off not rebalancing.
I've intentionally left out the tax and transactional costs of rebalancing. It's assumed that the portfolio is sheltered. (With taxable accounts, beyond the use of net investment/withdrawal and the reallocation of mandatory distributions, active rebalancing is generally not a good idea. In order to get a closer look at the problem I've taken a fairly conventional portfolio:
• 40% S&P 500
• 15% US Small Stocks
• 15% Foreign Stocks
• 30% 5-Year Government Bonds
All four of these assets are available in the DFA returns program, and it is a relatively easy matter to crank out the returns for portfolios rebalanced monthly, quarterly, annually, biannually, and every 4 years. In order to smooth things out I used 24 28-year periods, staggered by one month:

From To Monthly Quarterly Annual 2 Years 4 Years
Jan-69 Dec-96 11.01% 11.10% 11.11% 11.52% 11.37%
Feb-69 Jan-97 11.09% 11.10% 11.10% 11.40% 11.46%
Mar-69 Feb-97 11.27% 11.34% 11.27% 11.54% 11.69%
Apr-69 Mar-97 11.06% 11.15% 11.03% 11.23% 11.40%
May-69 Apr-97 11.10% 11.12% 11.14% 11.28% 11.48%
Jun-69 May-97 11.31% 11.37% 11.41% 11.49% 11.68%
Jul-69 Jun-97 11.66% 11.76% 11.76% 11.81% 12.01%
Aug-69 Jul-97 12.04% 12.05% 12.15% 12.14% 12.35%
Sep-69 Aug-97 11.81% 11.87% 11.91% 11.90% 12.04%
Oct-69 Sep-97 12.09% 12.19% 12.24% 12.15% 12.23%
Nov-69 Oct-97 11.81% 11.87% 11.82% 11.81% 11.94%
Dec-69 Nov-97 11.94% 12.01% 12.06% 11.98% 12.12%
Jan-70 Dec-97 12.07% 12.17% 12.16% 12.09% 12.26%
Feb-70 Jan-98 12.27% 12.28% 12.26% 12.23% 12.38%
Mar-70 Feb-98 12.31% 12.38% 12.31% 12.29% 12.39%
Apr-70 Mar-98 12.44% 12.54% 12.42% 12.38% 12.47%
May-70 Apr-98 12.82% 12.83% 12.84% 12.77% 12.85%
Jun-70 May-98 12.93% 12.99% 12.97% 12.95% 13.02%
Jul-70 Jun-98 13.10% 13.19% 13.14% 13.13% 13.21%
Aug-70 Jul-98 12.86% 12.88% 12.95% 12.96% 13.00%
Sep-70 Aug-98 12.30% 12.37% 12.38% 12.43% 12.48%
Oct-70 Sep-98 12.28% 12.36% 12.44% 12.58% 12.65%
Nov-70 Oct-98 12.54% 12.55% 12.62% 12.88% 12.92%
Dec-70 Nov-98 12.61% 12.68% 12.70% 13.04% 13.00%

Average 12.030% 12.090% 12.091% 12.166% 12.267%

This is a fairly tedious table, but cursory examination shows that for almost all periods studied there is a monotonous improvement as one increases rebalancing period, except that there seems to be little difference between annual and quarterly rebalancing. (And for those of you who are hard core stat nuts, except for annual/quarterly pairwise t tests between all of the periods are highly significant.) The reason for this is fairly obvious. Asset class returns are not a perfect random walk. If they were, then there would be no profit to rebalancing. After all, rebalancing amounts to a bet that last year's above/below average return will reverse next year. If this is not the case, then there is no sense in rebalancing. There is overwhelming evidence that there is short-term persistence in asset class returns, so it is a good idea not to be too hasty pulling the trigger. To illustrate this point I've plotted the ratios between the 4 year end-wealth of the 3 equity assets studied.

Notice how a 4 year end-wealth ratio of 2.0 (or 0.5, which has the same meaning) is not at all unusual. In other words, start out with a buck of each asset and four years later it is entirely possible that one will be worth twice the other. If you rebalance the pair frequently along the way, you're liable to get the short end of the stick.
So, at first blush the answer to the rebalancing frequency problem would seem to be "not very often." But appearances are deceiving. Take a look at the bottom row of the above table. The average difference between quarterly and 4-yearly rebalancing is only 18 basis points. This comes at a cost—namely, that over a 4-year period your allocation will get seriously out of wack, incurring higher risk. For example, the above 40/15/15/30 S&P/SM/EAFE/bond portfolio, started at policy in January 1995 would have wound up at 56/13/10/21 if not rebalanced over the next 4 years.
The alternative to calendar rebalancing is threshold rebalancing. In other words, instead of regularly rebalancing, instead waiting until an asset's portfolio contribution gets x percent out of wack before adjusting it back to policy. Unfortunately, I know of no good way of evaluating this method, since tiny changes in the threshold are critical. In other words, whether your threshold for large or small stocks was barely reached, or barely missed, on October 19, 1987 makes a whopping difference. And in any case, it ain't gonna happen the same way next time.
So, what can we conclude from all this?
o Monthly rebalancing is too frequent.
o There are small rewards to increasing one's rebalancing frequency from quarterly up to several years, but this comes at the price of increased portfolio risk.
You makes your choice and you takes your chances, but don't sweat this one too much. The returns differences among various rebalancing strategies are quite small in the long run.



Copyright © 2000, William J. Bernstein. All rights reserved.

__________________

__________________
rmark is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Secret Money. Do you hide money from your spouse? Enuff2Eat FIRE and Money 72 07-08-2008 04:13 AM
Rebalancing across investment vehicles NinjaPigeon FIRE and Money 4 07-09-2006 04:19 PM
Can You Waste Money? boont FIRE and Money 47 06-21-2006 06:31 PM
Borrowing money during retirement. proud_texan FIRE and Money 2 09-11-2003 06:05 PM
Money market in 401K Bill FIRE and Money 2 05-31-2003 08:15 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:40 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.